Hello, welcome to Barratt Redrow plc FY 2026 trading update. My name is Laura, and I will be your coordinator for today's event. Please note this call is being recorded, and for the duration of the call, your lines will be on listen only mode. However, you will have the opportunity to ask questions at the end of the call. This can be done by pressing star one on your telephone keypad to register your question. I will now hand you over to your host, David Thomas, Chief Executive Officer, to begin today's conference. Thank you. Good morning, everyone, thank you for joining us on our FY 2026 trading update call. Mike Roberts and John Messenger are with me this morning. As ever, I'd like to start off by thanking all of our employees, our subcontractors, and our suppliers for their continued commitment and sheer hard work, which has driven this performance. Last month, we achieved 122 NHBC Pride in the Job awards, more than any other house builder for the 22nd consecutive year, and it is our best result ever. It is this commitment, operational excellence, and focus on our build quality and our customers that has underpinned this solid performance. Clearly, the operating environment is challenging, but we've responded proactively to these challenges. We've used incentives carefully to maintain sales momentum. As a result, we delivered total home completions 5% ahead of last year, at 17,667, and adjusted PBT in line with market expectations. We have applied rigorous cost control to our cost base, partially offsetting some of the gross margin pressure. We have reduced our investment in land. This decision around land investment and our actions across the business have delivered a very strong balance sheet position, with year-end net cash of GBP 772 million. As many on the call will be aware, we have consistently evolved our capital allocation policy and returned almost GBP 3.5 billion to shareholders over the last 10 years. Our capital allocation policy is based around maintaining that strong balance sheet while keeping the financial flexibility needed to both invest in growth and meet significant cash commitments over the next few years. The GBP 400 million return announced today is entirely consistent with that flexible but disciplined approach. Like others in the sector, particularly since the outbreak of the conflict in the Middle East, our shares are trading at a significant discount to tangible net asset value. As a result, our FY 2027 capital return of GBP 400 million will be delivered predominantly through share buybacks with a nominal dividend. Looking ahead, we remain committed to returning to shareholders 50% of our earnings, complemented by a minimum GBP 100 million annual share buyback. On that note, I will now hand over to Mike to discuss the operational performance of the business. Thanks, David, and good morning, everyone. I want to start with reservations. Our overall private reservation rate was 0.64, which compares to 0.63 on an aggregated basis last year. This includes a 0.08 contribution from PRS and multi-unit sales, in line with last year. Although following budget uncertainty, we saw significant PRS reservations shift towards the end of the year. Sales incentives to support reservation activity remained at the elevated levels we saw in the second quarter given the outbreak of the conflict in the Middle East. We would expect incentives to stay at this level until consumer sentiment and affordability improves. As David outlined, we delivered 17,667 total home completions in the year, 5% ahead of the aggregated figure in FY 2026. Performance was weighted towards the second half, consistent with our usual trading patterns and in line with our build scheduling and reservations generated in the second and third quarters. The average selling price for the year was GBP 352,000, an increase of 2.3%. This was driven by increased home size and a higher contribution from our regions with higher average selling prices. We estimate that underlying sales pricing was around 1% lower across the year, and our order book at the year-end is carrying an underlying ASP decline of 1.4%. This reflects a market where our customers face affordability challenges, political and macroeconomic uncertainty, and they are, as a result, cautious and price conscious. In this context, we're pleased that the forward order book is solid, with forward sales of GBP 2.8 billion, only slightly down on last year. Our average sales outlet numbers at 405 were flat versus the first half and in line with our guidance at the start of the year. We have launched a total of 136 new sales outlets in the year, including our first 12 Synergy sales outlets, where performance has been really encouraging, reinforcing our confidence in the benefits of our multi-brand approach. 18 further Synergy sites are scheduled to open this year, and we are targeting a further 15 in FY 2028. In April, we guided to average sales outlets for FY 2027 of between 425 and 435. However, the frustratingly slow pace of planning approvals, but coupled with good progress on outlet closures, means we're now expecting average sales outlets of around 415 in FY 2027. Turning now to build cost inflation. In April, we guided to build cost inflation for the year of 2% and 3% in the second half. That has played out as expected, and we are likely to experience further build cost pressure in this financial year, particularly on the materials side. The scale of our business, enhanced by the Redrow acquisition, is helping to mitigate some of the impact. Through our ongoing negotiations with our supply chain partners, we are mitigating increases or building in flexibility for prices to reduce as and when supplied input costs reverse. Against this backdrop, our current assumption is that we could see total build cost inflation of 3%-4% in FY 2027. Slightly higher on materials, which could be 4%-5%, but more muted on labor, which we expect to be between 2% and 3%. We'll hopefully have a clearer picture and be able to update further information in September. With that, I'll pass back to David. Thanks very much, Mike. Now to touch briefly on the Redrow integration. We're pleased that operationally, all elements of the Redrow integration have completed. All of the GBP 100 million cost synergies have been confirmed, and at GBP 73 million, the benefit to the P&L in FY 2026 was slightly ahead of that expected at the interims. There is a further GBP 27 million benefit to come before the end of December 2027 to complete the GBP 100 million per annum synergy. In FY 2026, both synergy delivery and the rigorous management of our cost base, something that we highlighted at the interim stage, delivered a very positive reduction in our administrative expenses. Turning to adjusted items. We have given details in the statement, charges are expected to total around GBP 160 million. The most significant element relates to legacy property provision charges of around GBP 95 million, mainly reflecting additional remediation costs on two developments that were already under review, as well as recognizing the impact of build cost inflation. Turning to land, we approved just over 3,000 plots for purchase in FY 2026. That's well below the 7,000-9,000 plots guided to in April. This reflects a very deliberate decision to be even more selective in our land acquisition, and also to cancel some prior approvals given the uncertain environment. Land cash spend in the year was also more modest at GBP 625 million, compared to guidance of between GBP 700 million and GBP 800 million. This has driven an increase in our year-end cash balances, which at GBP 772 million, was some GBP 170 million better than our April guidance. Finally, turning to the outlook. We have navigated difficult markets before, we see that we are well-positioned. Our business model is resilient and flexible. Our balance sheet is strong. We have three high-quality and complementary brands which are performing well, and we expect to deliver total home completions of between 17,700 and 18,200 in FY 2027. As we demonstrated this year and with today's announcement, we have a clear focus on optimizing our capital to enhance returns for shareholders. Thank you. With that, we'll be very happy to take questions. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, as a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. We'll pause for a brief moment to allow everyone to signal for questions. Thank you. We'll now take our first question from Will Jones of Rothschild & Co Redburn. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Morning. Thank you. Three, please, if I could. The first just around trading in your fiscal Q4, whether you could just talk us through how it evolved through the period, just given all the various headlines we've had internationally and at home, and whether you'd call out anything interesting around buyer types or the regions. Second was just around build costs. Just hoping to explore the degree of visibility you've got on that, particularly with regards to materials and the extent to which you've been able to agree any increases as energy surcharges as opposed to fixed price increases. The last one was just tying up on cash outflows for the year ahead. Obviously, lots of detail given, just wondered if you had a view on what the land approval number you've guided to plot-wise might mean for the cash land spend, and therefore, if there's any high-level thinking on the net cash or net debt position a year from now. Thanks. Will, thank you very much. If I start off, I'll talk about trading in Q4, then I'll pass to Mike will pick up in terms of just build costs and some of the things that we're seeing on build costs. John will pick up in terms of cash outflows in relation to land and other areas. Look, Will, on Q4, I'd say there's nothing unusual to report in terms of regions or particular brands or product types. I think it's an ongoing trend where affordability is most challenged in London and the Southeast. Therefore, if we compare London to Scotland or the North of England, unquestionably, London and the Southeast is seeing it more difficult. That was the same position that we saw up to Q3. The only other point which Mike touched on in the overview is that we did secure multi-unit sales in Q4, primarily because I think most people backed away from the market, given all the uncertainty in the run up to the budget towards the end of 2025. We kind of recovered that position and ended up with pretty much the same overall position for multi-unit sales and private rental, albeit it was a late delivery in Q4. Mike? On materials, as I said, we've guided to 3%-4%. We think the material content will be slightly higher than that and less so on the labor. In terms of visibility, you'll be aware we have sort of ongoing all-year-round negotiations and conversations with our supply chain and supply chain partners. The deals that we strike are not all at one point, so those sort of revised prices and fixed term periods revolve through the year. We do feel that there's some headroom in the supply chain, so we're not seeing price increases because of scarcity. Actually, quite the reverse. People are talking to us, particularly with our sort of key differentiator being the size of the combined business, in terms of securing their future supplies. We've been able to mitigate some price increases as a result. Where we've seen sort of exceptionally, or not exceptionally, but higher levels of inflation due to Middle East conflict and price of oil being fluctuating. We've generally agreed surcharges, and we've agreed mechanisms where those will reduce as and when the price of oil drops. We've done that both with our material supply partners, but also our subcontract supply chain as well, where they're heavy users of the likes of diesel and the like. We review the prices by sector, so we're seeing higher pressure on plastics and resin-related products, as you'd expect. Bulk materials less so. In many instances, the suppliers have hedged their fuel prices. I guess that might change if the conflict escalates again. At the moment, we're relatively confident with the forecast that we've got, and we keep on going with the conversations we're having with the supply chain. Thanks, Mike. Then just, yes, coming back, Will, on the question around land and commitments around the approvals. Two things to flag. One, obviously you've seen already, but GBP 330 million is our estimate in terms of land credits that outflows for the year ahead. That is effectively baked in and locked in. On top of that, when we look at what is in the approvals hopper, effectively there is broadly between GBP 220 million and GBP 250 million is the kind of broad feel in terms of that number. Obviously, as the year evolves, that may change, but certainly as we sit here today in terms of committed spend, we're in that kind of scale, that order, GBP 220 million-GBP 250 million. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks very much, Will. Thank you. We'll now take our next question from Harry Goad of Berenberg. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Yeah. Hi, good morning. Thanks. Thanks for my question. Can you just talk a little bit about the land market? I appreciate the sort of need or desire to invest is lower. Harry, sorry. You're not coming through clearly to us, Harry. Can you hear this any better? That's a little bit better. Yeah, just go slow. Thanks, Harry. Okay. Just on the land market, please. Notwithstanding the sort of need or desire to invest less, can you talk about what you're seeing in terms of opportunities and particularly pricing and are there interesting deals out there if you did want to do it? Thank you. Yeah. Certainly, Harry. Look, thank you very much. Yeah, I think if we go back to February, one of the things that we were saying in February is that we have an enormous amount of our own applications in for planning. I think the whole industry anticipates that the changes coming from the legislation that was passed in December and the revised National Planning Policy Framework, which has not yet been published, but has been scheduled to be published this week, would result in a big change in the planning backdrop. I think we've said previously that the legislation was delayed. The first half of the year was definitely impacted at a local level where there was local elections, and the planning policy framework has not yet been published. Nonetheless, applications have gone in. We would expect that the availability of land will alter substantially as we move through the second half of 2026 and into 2027. We don't see any shortage of opportunity in terms of land with planning. I think it's more about the uncertainty of rates of sale, and also, as Mike just talked about, the uncertainty of build costs in terms of us building up the viability position. Got it. Thank you very much. Thanks, Harry. Thank you. We'll now take our next question from Zain [Ebrahim] of J.P. Morgan. The line is open. Go ahead. Morning. Thanks for taking my questions. I'll go with three. The first is just on incentives. I think you mentioned that it sort of moved higher due to the budget-related uncertainty, but feels like we could be in that scenario again with some stamp duty and Help to Buy rumors. Are you worried about incentives potentially going higher again? Second one is just a bit of help reconciling land approvals going from around 22,500 to 3,000, but land spend just moving down from GBP 860 million to around GBP 600 million. Finally on build cost inflation 3%-4%. Sorry to come back on this, but any view on how that's split between calendar year 2026 and 2027? Are you expecting a big step-up in H2 versus that 3%-4% average? Thank you. Okay. Yeah, thanks very much for those questions. I think if I just pick up in terms of the incentive position, and John will then talk about the cash land spend via the land approvals, and also John can pick up in terms of the phasing of the headline on build cost inflation. I think it's important on build cost inflation just to talk about the split in terms of labor and materials, which John will do. I think it was well documented last year that the way information about the budget leaked into the market from probably July, August time was enormously unhelpful. Particularly regarding stamp duty, potential changes to stamp duty, as you touched on the possibility of demand-side support and also discussions about taxation around property. We would just reinforce the fact that that kind of leakage and speculation is enormously unhelpful for the market. We'll just need to see how that plays out. There is already discussion in the media about the potential of there being demand-side support introduced, which clearly net-net we would see as being the right thing to do and a big positive for the market. The speculation around it is not going to encourage people to be transacting. We've got to recognize there is potentially a delay effect in relation to those discussions. John? Yeah. Zain, good morning. Just on the first one in terms of the land spend and the profile, I think the key thing to flag here is that we have, obviously in the process, we approve land that then sits there effectively in a holding hopper, and then we will go through to subject to planning, clear the planning consents, and that would typically then trigger the purchase of the land. We'll obviously break out in September how many plots were actually purchased in the year, but the approval process is in advance of that. Effectively, as our approvals slow down, that will ultimately then slow through into the land spend that you actually see going through the cash flow statement and hitting our balance sheet. It's purely around the timing of that. Obviously we have the 3,029 plots. They are sitting there as approvals. They will create that slower land spend. As I mentioned earlier to the question, we're talking about GBP 220 million -GBP 250 million of committed land spend on top of the land creditors. There will likely be a sharp slowdown as we move through into FY 2027 from FY 2026. In terms of build cost inflation, to David's point, a couple of things to flag really. Look, clearly we're flagging within build costs, which are about 60% of sales. You have broadly 60% of that is materials, 40% is labor. When we look at the labor content, we're flagging 2%-3% inflation. Given the backdrop of capacity in the industry and the likely slowing, particularly among the smaller developers, we think actually that labor cost inflation has probably got an ability to move lower. If we look at the material side, between 4% and 5%, again, a lot of the supply chain is running at less capacity utilization than they would like. That's why we've had success in terms of building in deflators as well as escalators based around energy and input costs. I think the supply chain is keen to drive volume at some point and is particularly conscious of how much cost inflation the industry's borne over the last five years. Those are the ingredients in there. I think from the point of view of how that build cost will evolve through into our numbers in FY 2027, a lot of this will depend on when we actually agree terms through September, October, we're probably likely to see more of that inflation feeding through in the second half. Pretty much in the way we value our land and looking at our landbank embedded margins, once we know about a cost increase, we reflect that in our valuations, and that starts to come through in the margins as we report the same. Overall, probably slightly more build cost inflation in the second half, it won't be that significant because we recognize it as we move forward and as we agree terms with suppliers. Great. Thanks both. Thank you. We will now take our next question from Chris Millington of Deutsche Bank. The line is open. Please go ahead. Thank you. Morning, everyone. A few again, may as well keep the theme going. First one is about the sustainability of shareholder returns, really, guys. The GBP 400 million is probably going to be more than 100% of net income next year. I appreciate lower land spend helps, but if you do have to move back into the land market at a more replacement rate, do you think you can continue paying that? Number two is really just about the outlets impact of this lower land spend as we move beyond 2027. Is it likely to be a little bit more severe than the reduction you've put through today for FY 2027? The final one, it relates to something you just talked about there, David, about Help to Buy, I just want to know whether or not you've had any discussion with the government and kind of what you feel the probability of a return of the scheme would be. Chris, thank you. If I pick up on shareholder returns and on Help to Buy. I think on shareholder returns, I said in the overview that over the last 10 years, we've returned around GBP 3.5 billion in terms of shareholder returns. I understand that there's been clearly variable levels of profitability during that period of time. Clearly that's a significant average annual run rate in terms of shareholder returns. The GBP 400 million that we've announced this morning, we're very clearly saying that that GBP 400 million is in excess of how we're guiding on a go-forward basis. We're guiding on a go-forward basis on returning on a two times cover basis for earnings, plus GBP 100 million, which is where we were previously. We see that there is an additional return of GBP 100 million - GBP 120 million within that GBP 400 million. I think that's kind of clearly set out within the statement. We're very conscious, as John's touched on already, about the other cash flow outflows that we have. Land credit for us clearly is a trading liability, but is unquestionably a liability. Then we also have the Building Safety liability. We're very conscious that these are significant outflows, and we're managing that in terms of the way that we're looking at shareholder returns. In terms of Help to Buy, I think, Chris, the shortest answer is, of course, we've talked to government. We've talked to the previous government, we've talked to this government, we'll talk to the new government that forms shortly. We've been very clear that it is unusual in the market for there to be no demand-side support. If you go back over the last 30 years, the vast majority of years, there has been demand-side support, particularly focused on first-time buyers and recognizing that property prices, generally, property prices are high, and there are particular challenges around affordability for first-time buyers. We will obviously, again, make that point to the new government, as we have done previously. I think the whole point that's key is that the industry has always said that we would pay for a scheme. We have previously paid in relation to government demand-side support schemes. We've never had a problem with paying. We believe that the existence of a scheme is fundamentally important if we are going to collectively deliver the homes that the country needs. Do you want me to carry on with the outlets? Yeah. In terms of outlets, Chris, obviously for the current year, the guidance there to 405. If we look at 2027 moving into 2028, we would still expect to make progress on sales outlets. If you think about the timeframe from land approvals through to opening a sales outlet, you're talking typically 24 months. Any slowdown, partly we'll be looking at clearly what we can do to drive additional sales outlets out of the existing portfolio, and then the impact will be more about FY 2029 if there is a more extended period where we're not purchasing sites for additional sales outlets. As things stand for 2027 and 2028, we're still expecting making progress. Got you. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. We will now take our next question from Rebecca Parker of Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Rebecca, how are you doing? Rebecca's line just got disconnected. It dropped off while placing her in. We will now move on to our next question while waiting for Rebecca to queue in back. Take our next question from Allison Sun of Bank of America. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Hi. Thank you. Hi. Morning. I have two questions. The first one is easy one. Do you have seen any impact from the heatwave that we see some of the contractors are flagging this, on the demand and also the construction progress? The second question is on the land bank. Can you tell us what do you expect the land bank years to be at the end of 2027? Should we still be expecting around 4.5 years target? After that, should we presume your land plots acquired will be roughly equivalent to completions? Thank you. Okay. Allison, sorry. Thank you. Yeah. Just pick on that. In terms of heatwave, I mean, clearly it presents challenges for our build teams, but I think we have very clear protocols in place. I think also to some extent our build scheduling because of our financial year-end in June, I think that it's not been any challenge for us. I think it's more a challenge around customers and customers' appetites to come out to sites, firstly. We're also balancing in terms of people watching football as well. There's plenty of challenges, but I think we're navigating our way through it okay. In terms of the land bank, the reality is no, we're not going to be at a 4.5-year land bank at the end of FY 2027. We have been very clear that we are managing the land bank down to a 4.5-year position. I think that's a key point when we look at cash flows. John touched on the creation of Synergy sites, and we believe that will help to free up both land and work in progress as those Synergy sites really start to move and deliver completions, as they will do through 2027, 2028, and 2029. It will take a bit more time to manage land bank down to 4.5 years. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We will now take our next question from Rebecca Parker of Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Hi. Sorry about before. I was just wondering, given the step down in those plot approvals, just wondering how you're viewing that selective land buying strategy versus your medium-term volume growth aspirations. I'll pause there and then I'll ask my other questions later. Yeah. Okay. Rebecca, if I pick that up, I think when you look at the growth plans that we set out in February 2025, there was really three parts to that. One was new land that we had coming into the business that we had already approved. The second part of it was the Synergy sites, and we are creating outlets from existing land, therefore, no need to go out into the market, and that was delivering 45 sites over a period, as we've outlined this morning. The third part of it would be new land approvals. The reality is, the first two parts are secure. The land is under our control, and we can deliver the sites from that land. The third part of it clearly is more variable. At an extreme, if we weren't to approve any more land, then clearly we would see outlet numbers come in lower than expected. That isn't the backdrop that we expect. We've had multiple instances over the last 10 years, COVID, for example, the war in Ukraine, where we have initially stepped away from the land market, taken time to assess as to how the market has settled, we've gone back into the market. We wouldn't expect that to be any different this time. Okay, thanks. The adjusted admin expense came in significantly below your previous guidance. Just wondering if you could unpack the key drivers behind that GBP 70-odd million outperformance. Yes. John. Hi, Rebecca. Yes, coming back. Obviously, we guided to 400, we are delivering circa 330. Two things really. One is Synergy we obviously expected, although we did rather better, circa GBP 3 million better there, which is a small movement clearly. We did back in February, really highlight a big focus internally within the group in terms of looking to optimize and really control our cost base. I think we are really pleased with the fact that across the business, both in the center and in the divisions, there has been a real focus on controlling costs and ensuring that we are matching that level of spend with where activity was moving. That is the beginning. There are a couple of minor credits in there are some small numbers because you will see in the back, we are guiding to admin expenses of around GBP 360 million for the current year. That is quite a step up. Effectively, within FY 2026, there were some one-offs of the order of GBP 18 million-GBP 20 million. We are really starting with a cost base of call it GBP 348-GBP 350, which we expect to move to GBP 360 in the year ahead. It was really down to good housekeeping and the kind of disciplines that you would expect from Barratt Redrow in terms of controlling our costs, looking at discretionary spending, and making sure we kept a tight lid on everything we were doing. Thanks. Last question, just given that you have had additional legacy property provision charges here, just wondering what the risk is of additional remediation costs going forward and what you are currently assuming on build cost inflation within that provision. Rebecca. In terms of build cost inflation within the provisioning, we are looking at 4%-5% in relation to build cost inflation. Clearly, that is negotiated and set on a project-by-project basis. As you would imagine, there is a lot of demand in terms of building remediation skills. We are putting in that sort of level in relation to inflation. I think the second point, clearly, it is disappointing that there are further costs to take. I think looking at the nature of those costs, they are primarily arising from buildings that we were already aware of, where we had made estimates in relation to the costs. Either when we have started the process of remediation or we have started the investigation in relation to the buildings, in terms of looking at the structure, we have identified additional issues. I think the positive is that it's not about an expansion of the number of buildings within the portfolio. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Rebecca. Thank you. We will now take a question from Charlie Campbell of Stifel. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Morning. Yeah. Thanks for taking the questions. Just a couple from me. Just on the fire safety provision, clearly the timing of the cash outflows is moving around quite a bit. Just wonder why it was a bit lower in FY 2026, and therefore the confidence of that quite high number in FY 2027. Also a question on mortgage availability, just wondering how that's shaping up the last few months since energy prices went up. Be really helpful. Thank you. Yeah. Certainly. Thanks, Charlie. In terms of cash outflows, we've updated guidance in terms of our expected outflows across building safety and line creditors for FY 2027 and FY 2028. The reality is in FY 2026, there's two main drivers of that, which we broadly refer to as regulatory. First of all projects for remediation on buildings 18 m and above has to go through the Building Safety Regulator. It's been well documented that whilst the Building Safety Regulator speed and performance has improved dramatically, there was a long period of time where it could be taking 9-12 months to put buildings, not just remediation, also new build, through the regulator. That's been well documented. The Building Safety Regulator has accelerated timescales very substantially in respect of new build. They're not necessarily meeting all of their targets, but they're much closer to meeting the targets on new build. There is still a significant lag in terms of projects for remediation. That is delay number one. Delay number two is a significant part of the spend for the group, is about the repayment to the Building Safety Fund. We had made assumptions regarding the timing of those repayments, and we've simply moved those assumptions back from FY 2026 into FY 2027 and beyond. We're sort of capturing both of those under the subject of regulatory. In relation to our mortgage availability, I think if you look at mortgage availability in the round, it is much improved. Changes that have been made to the regulatory backdrop regarding mortgages, more competition in terms of the banks wanting to lend to new build, et cetera. I think there isn't an issue per se on mortgage availability. I think it is more about pricing and the way that that feeds into the affordability calculations. Thanks very much, Charlie. Thank you. As a final reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please press star one on your telephone keypad. Thank you. We will now take our next question from Lewis Roxburgh of Goodbody. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Morning, guys. Just two from me. Just coming back to the order book. It points to around a 1.4% reduction in the ASP. Could you just help us unpack how much of that is underlying versus mix and you're assuming some recovery given flat guidance HPI for FY 2027? Secondly, you highlighted the difference between average net cash and the previous period end position. Just to clarify whether your intention to remain net cash applies to both metrics, and if that's a primary focus operationally for the business. Thanks. Hi, Lewis. John here. Just coming back on the first one. The 1.4 is effectively when we do our matching pairs. When we look across our sites that were operating in the order book a year ago or operating this year, look at house types and then look at the blended impact of pricing. That 1.4 is effectively what we call the like for like. The purified figure is the 1.4. There is product mix and there is geography that plays around with the overall reported average that you see there in terms of the average selling price in the order book spot this year versus last year. Hopefully that clears that one up. That 1.4, clearly we're going to work hard to try and shift certainly the nominal price before we think about incentives. Trying to move that forward, but it's clearly a tough market to do that in right now where customer growth is price conscious as they are. We'll be working hard to do that where we can. On the incentive level, as we kind of flagged, look, we expect that to stay broadly where it is. One thing we are certainly doing internally and across all of our divisions is trying to focus our sales teams particularly on where is that customer on their journey. What type of customer, what time frame are they working to? Because we need to look at our sites and think, well, where is the build stage? Are we allowing a reservation with a high incentive pretty much at the point of foundation, or are we looking at a finished unit? It's obviously much more important to target incentives where we've tied up the capital, where we've got a completed unit and it works better to move that through the system and secure a purchaser. Time frame of development, the actual performance of each sales outlet is important in there as well. Ultimately, what kind of customer are we dealing with? What is their time frame and what are they looking for? Those all play it up, but certainly trying to target and become ever more efficient in terms of using incentives where they matter most. In terms of the average net cash, as you flag, we were GBP 122 average net cash in the year just finished. Certainly, we flagged in the statement that we want to operate over the medium term at year-end. We have a large deficit in terms of the total net position of debt or cash, less land creditors, we want to be broadly neutral in the medium term. If we look at the position on average across the year, if you think about the impact of the buyback that David mentioned in terms of the incremental GBP 120 million, GBP 130 million, that would imply we'll operate with lower average net cash and potentially a bit of debt on average across FY 2027. Certainly, at the end of the year, we'd expect to be back pretty close to that position in terms of limited net indebtedness when we take account of land credits. Does that cover it all? That's helpful, John. Thanks. Yep, that's great. Thanks. Thanks very much, Lewis. Thank you. I'll take our next question from Peter of Morgan Stanley. Your line is open. Please go ahead. Good morning. Peter Ajose-Adeogun from Morgan Stanley. I just have two questions. The first is just around the different buyer segments. Maybe versus a year ago, could you talk about which buyer segments are potentially weakest now between first-time buyers, second steppers, downsizers? I ask that from the context of, if we were to see some sort of improvement in the, I guess, which buyer segment almost has the most room for growth or improvement from where we are today. The second question was just around the Synergy sites. I noticed in the commentary you mentioned, you've launched the first 12 Synergy outlets. Could you just give some context just in terms of how that's going, how you're avoiding things like cannibalization between brands, and just anything you can report just around how that's gone so far, I guess? Yeah, of course. Yeah. Thank you very much. I'll pick up in terms of buyer segments, and then Mike will pick up in terms of the Synergy site and what we're seeing there. Just in terms of buyer segments, I would say that to generalize, when there is uncertainty in the market, for most first-time buyers, they can pause. They're either renting, and they can carry on renting, or they're living at home, and they can carry on living at home. I think for most first-time buyers, it is a relatively easy decision to pause. Second steppers, I think there is generally a driver for second steppers, without running through them all. For example, maybe larger family need to move home. There tends to be more of a real driver. Downsizers, I think it's been well documented with downsizers that if there's market uncertainty, for a downsizer, it's very easy just to sit tight. They're very often sitting with no mortgage, and they're therefore a cash buyer. I think those are the two areas that we would see most challenge about. We talked earlier on the call about our strong feeling that there should be demand-side support for first-time buyers. I think for downsizers, Redrow would historically have seen a lot of downsizers. Cash buyers into Redrow, if you went back three years ago, could have been around 40% of private customers, and that will be very substantially reduced, well below 30%. I think those are the two main areas that we see the impact. Yeah. Hi, Peter. On the Synergy sites, as we said, we've got 12 now open and selling. The initial results are exactly as we expected, and we're seeing enhanced sales rates across both the brands. As an example, we've got three Synergy outlets in Yorkshire. Two of those have doubled the rate that we were selling at previously from a single brand. One has retained a rate of 0.6 for both brands as we put the additional brand on. It's still early days, relatively, but really encouraging in terms of the delivery. I think it's important to note that when we put the Synergy sites on, and we put the additional brands on, we've differentiated the product offering, and that's proven really popular with purchasers. In some instances, we're seeing that the new brand that's dropped onto the site is actually outstripping the existing brand without reducing the existing brand. It's just selling more as a new outlet. Again, that's really positive. We are seeing instances where the additional brand is increasing footfall to the existing outlet. Actually, rather than cannibalizing, it's enhancing sort of delivery from the existing outlet. As I said, we've got 18 targeted for this financial year, which we've got good line of sight on, and 15, again, we've got good line of sight on next year. 11 we've got planning, 15 we've applied. We're well-positioned to deliver those additional outlets. Probably worth noting that once we've done these Synergy sites for the sites that were identified at combination, that it becomes BAU for us, really, that triple brand strategy really allows us to enhance the land bank, enhance new land purchases, and make land more efficient for us. We'll drive delivery off a lower capital outlay. It just becomes BAU for us once we've delivered through these 45 or so that we're targeting. Thank you very much, both. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll now take the final question from Sam Cullen of Peel Hunt. Line is open. Please go ahead. Yeah. Morning, everyone. I've just got one, really, and it's more of an industry-wide question, I think. You've been pretty clear in your statement that you think the sector needs some sort of buyer support, especially for first-time buyers. If we think rightly or wrongly, that remains politically possible and we have the current trading conditions continue for the next couple of years, my question is really where does the business and the sector go from here, and how sustainable is it to operate with the current returns profile before we need to see more fundamental changes to either the operating model or operating structure going forward? Sam, thank you. I would say that if you consider a period of time, six-month period of time, looking historically, the industry has operated in the last 10 years, with rates of sale that have ranged between 0.8, 0.85, and 0.3, 0.35. I think the industry has operated effectively through some very different rates of sale. I think the first thing is that we've got to adapt to the market that exists in front of us, and that's adapting both in terms of the offers that we're putting in front of the customers, and it's also adapting in terms of our cost base. Whilst we strongly believe that a demand-side support for first-time buyers is an important ingredient for the market, given that the country needs to deliver more homes. We're not planning our business on the basis that that is what is going to happen. Therefore, you've seen over the last 12 months that we've increased the level of incentives, from the combination with Redrow in part, and from our own self-help measures. We've driven a huge amount of cost out of the business. The reality of it is that the industry will contract. The industry will not continue to grow. We are probably one of the few house builders that is setting out a growth strategy. The reality is if people start to take costs out and close divisions, inevitably the industry will contract, and you're seeing that from a number of our peers within the industry. We recognize that we have to adapt to the market as it exists. Thank you. Thanks very much, Sam. I think that's it in terms of all the questions. First of all, thank you for dialing in. Thank you for the questions, and we will be back with our full year results on the 16th of September. We'll talk to you then. Thank you very much.